/sfg/ Space Flight General

[Anonymous No.11598415]

Hubble’s 30th birthday

[Anonymous No.11598416]

Old thread >>11593608

[Anonymous No.11598419]

>>11598415
So, how's that Hubble replacement coming along?

[Anonymous No.11598448]

>>11598419
Already obsolete.

[Anonymous No.11598465]

>>11598415
`ate boing
`ate virgin lol virgin
'ate nasa

luv me elon
luve me starship

simple as

[Anonymous No.11598470]

>>11598465
based

[Anonymous No.11598471]

>>11598415
Hubble, Hubble, toil and trouble. Mirror blur and rad shield bubble. Thanks for the broken toy, glowponies. NASA made better use of it than you ever would.

[Anonymous No.11598473]

>>11598465
bloodeh marshuns

[Anonymous No.11598482]

>>11598465
but wait, if spayce has no up or down, how is there a norf n souf ey? u didn't fink this through

[Anonymous No.11598554]

>>11598482
North Lunar Pole vs. South Lunar Pole

[Anonymous No.11598568]

[Anonymous No.11598592]

>>11598568
outdated

[Anonymous No.11598627]

>>11598592
there is a picture of the nose cone made, so that is oudated ironically

[Anonymous No.11598643]

>>11598592
Is this the one that should carry fins?

[Anonymous No.11598655]

>>11598627
true
>>11598643
SN4 no nosecone or wings
SN5 guaranteed nosecone, possible wings
SN6 guaranteed nosecone and wings

[Anonymous No.11598668]

>>11598482
North is away from the sun. South is towards it.

[Anonymous No.11598671]

>they're already working on SN6

haha starship printer goes brrrrr

[Anonymous No.11598672]

>>11598592
Why make this 3D? Was it autism?

[Anonymous No.11598719]

>>11598473
kek

[Anonymous No.11598834]

>>11598419
The launch date is getting pushed back another ten years, but as least it will only cost another $20bn, right?

[Anonymous No.11599053]

>>11598465
first pub on mars is a fucking spoons, confirmed

[Anonymous No.11599078]

results
over
rhetoric

[Anonymous No.11599096]

>>11598482
>but wait, if spayce has no up or down, how is there a norf n souf ey?
Ye can't play footie in microgravity or asteroids with escape velocity lower than a good kick, ya nonce. Planets n moons each have norf n souf.

[Anonymous No.11599130]

>>11598672
It is the 5th model. Probably to just make it look cooler

[Anonymous No.11599152]

>>11599078
>'results over rhetoric'
>zero results so far
>was cucked by Shelby
>first versions won't even demonstrate reusability
>still less than half the payload to GTO than Falcon Heavy
>mrw
I get that this thing was designed before SpaceX came along, and it's nice to have more rockets, but this seems like too small of a step forward given recent developments and for how slow it's proceeding. I think this would've been a great rocket if it came out roughly the same time as the Falcon 9.

[Anonymous No.11599176]

>>11599152
That's one of the major problems with the "slow and steady" design mentality for really any industry, they always get left behind by disruptive technologies or more aggressive competitors willing to take risks. In the current climate of lazy, sluggish, unambitious and highly strangulating socialized economy dragging out contracts for decades and angling for guaranteed payout with low production speed is encouraged.

[Anonymous No.11599197]

>>11599176
>they always get left behind by disruptive technologies or more aggressive competitors willing to take risks.

That's an interesting problem I've never thought about. So if you're interested in your personal chance of survival, you're more likely to survive with a conservative strategy, and less likely to survive with a risky strategy. However, if multiple competitors attempt a risky strategy, even if just one survives they stand at an advantage to defeat you.

It's like how being genghis khan is dangerous and certain death, but facing genghis khan after you've lived a safe lifestyle would also be dangerous and certain death.

[Anonymous No.11599199]

>>11599152
To be fair, Falcon Heavy's PLF can't fit the larger LSA Phase 2 payloads, and if ACES ever materializes that would be ULA's first real revolutionary creation. But ULA is all about reliability and safety - Vulcan is an iterative change which is meant to maintain the legacy of Atlas/Delta in a newer, more flexible LV. /toryposting

[Anonymous No.11599226]

>>11599197
Pretty much, the way the US's 60% socialist economy coddles already highly established corporate entities makes it essentially impossible for tiny startups to compete against them and come out successful, SpaceX or even Blue Origin (if they had the mentality) could completely overturn their competitors with ease however, because even though they started small they have the fortunes of extremely wealthy people behind them, so they can skip the step of being a scrappy small startup crushed by excessive taxes, legal tape and regulation. It's exactly what they're doing now, the over-protected government backed monopolies of Boing! and Lockmeme, etc aren't prepared to face off against a real aggressive competitor, they've spent the past fifty years in an endless uncompetitive circlejerk of no-bid contracting and getting payed bonuses for doing nothing with the government as their overt benefactor.

That creates a lazy, sloppy, unmotivated mentality in their leadership which trickles down to everyone involved in design, production, RnD, etc. SpaceX could blow up ten Starship prototypes working the kinks out but then they'll start churning them out like cars, meanwhile Boing! and their 200 other subcontractors will spend ten years working on separate multibillion dollar booster, second stage and capsule projects which will get delayed for so long the technology and factory tooling will be obsolescent by the time it flies.

[Anonymous No.11599227]

>>11599199
Falcon 9's primary mission success is higher than Ariane 5. Safety is stupid to tromp around as your selling point nowadays.

[Anonymous No.11599277]

https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/starship_users_guide_v1.pdf
>Starship has the capability to transport satellites, payloads, crew, and cargo to a variety of orbits and Earth, Lunar, or Martian landing sites. Potential Starship customers can use this guide as a resourcefor preliminary payload accommodations information. This is the initial release of the Starship Users Guide and it will be updated frequently in response to customer feedback.
Old news for some, interesting official info for others.

[Anonymous No.11599280]

>>11599277
Curious as to how the hell they expect that hinged dildo is going to survive re-entry without shaking itself apart.

[Anonymous No.11599291]

>>11599280
Steel is pretty strong. And if worse comes, then SpaceX would just reinforce that section at the expense of payload volume.

[Anonymous No.11599297]

>>11599291
Well, it's already outdated anyway since they threw that LOX ball tank in the front for stability. They're probably going to opt for a shuttle bay or something like that for payloads.

[Anonymous No.11599306]

>>11599280
just lock it tight shut how hard can it be lmao

[Anonymous No.11599328]

>>11599306
Yeah, the material has done such a great fucking job so far at withstanding pressure tests. I'm sure it'll do a great fucking job with a couple of clamps free falling towards the planet.

[Anonymous No.11599368]

>>11599297
the ball isn't that big, and most of the space it takes up wouldn't have been practically usable anyway. i think it's fine

>>11599328
wah wah

[Anonymous No.11599371]

We're getting closer so SN4 testing, cryo test soon and a hop after that

https://youtu.be/5NZILCdr60I

[Anonymous No.11599386]

>>11599199
>To be fair, Falcon Heavy's PLF can't fit the larger LSA Phase 2 payloads

Larger LSA Phase 2 payload capacity and vertical payload integration coming Soon™

[Anonymous No.11599392]

>>11599328
leeward side and it doesn't even have to be pressurised, how hard can it be loooooooooool

[Anonymous No.11599395]

>>11599386
why does everything Musk designs look like reddit incarnate

[Anonymous No.11599408]

>>11599395
Because when all you hate is Reddit, everything you don't like becomes Reddit.

Also it isn't a shitty rehashed dead meme or a truly brave declaration of an already popular opinion or if they're truly heroic, a merely acceptable one, so it clearly isn't Reddit.

[Anonymous No.11599414]

>>11599392
It's still less than a quarter of the strength of the rest of the structure. Don't they teach you anything about construction? The hinged part is like flying a fucking fairing through the atmospheric re-entry, the bottom will be like a fucking fairing with struts tacked on.

[Anonymous No.11599416]

>>11599408
ok r*dditor

[Anonymous No.11599419]

>>11599280
space shuttle did it

[Anonymous No.11599422]

>>11599419
Yeah and look what a fucking death trap that was.

[Anonymous No.11599427]

>>11599395
The Iphone suits and interiors really do leave a lot to be desired in terms of aesthetics and they frankly look like they sacrifice some valuable intuitive stuff for a futuristic look, but you have to admit that the matte white/charcoal black color scheme will never lose it's A E S T H E T I C.

[Anonymous No.11599429]

>>11599422
It was never a death trap because of its hinged aerosurfaces.

[Anonymous No.11599440]

How are people supposed to get out of Starship and into the Martian surface? Is someone going to dangle a rope out of a door?

[Anonymous No.11599445]

>>11599422
The payload bay was never an issue.

[Anonymous No.11599448]

>>11599440
You get yeeted out 100 at a time.

[Anonymous No.11599449]

>>11599440
it's 1/3rd gravity just jump lmao

[Anonymous No.11599461]

>>11599422
The shuttle was at the opposite end of design from what it should have been. Too much plane, not enough rocket. It was a glider that happened to also have rocket engines, when it should have been a rocket that happened to have control surfaces instead.

[Anonymous No.11599468]

>>11599414
lmaoooooooo just try it it'll be alright m8

[Anonymous No.11599471]

>>11599440
Quick someone tell me how high you can fall to the ground on mars and not get hurt

[Anonymous No.11599489]

just depressurize the tanks and wait for it to crumble

[Anonymous No.11599500]

>>11599461
It was all there, but I guess it would be too easy for NASA. Not enough contractors involved.

[Anonymous No.11599517]

>>11599414
I doubt very much that you're the only one to have realized that the windward side of the vehicle will need to be structurally stronger to survive reentry. The leeward hinged side will need a lip that tucks into the windward side so that air won't work it's way up into the seam and try to lift the hinge open, the clasps holding the cargo door closed will need to be a good bit stronger than absolutely necessary, etc, etc.

I don't know why you'd compare it to a fairing unless you're being disingenuous though.

[Anonymous No.11599525]

>>11599517
Because he knows nothing about rockets. That should have been obvious when he was talking about the thing shaking itself apart during re-entry and not takeoff.

[Anonymous No.11599529]

>>11599500
>Not enough contractors involved.
It wasn't really that. It was because a Shuttle-C would mean the end of manned space flight for NASA as Shuttle-C could do everything the Shuttle could do but cheaper and faster.

[Anonymous No.11599537]

>>11599525
You know how that thing is supposed to land, right? Free fall belly flop to slow down before doing a hoverslam. Totally not going to be any aerodynamic pressure on that shit. Not in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.11599544]

>Musk confirms that SpaceX plans a pressure test of the latest Starship prototype, SN4, tomorrow. That comes up in a discussion about the challenges of building up a production system, which he says is far harder than building a single rocket.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1253783080869015552?s=20

[Anonymous No.11599558]

>>11599537
It's a giant one piece stainless steel clamshell on the leeward side. The shuttle had more a more complicated less robust design and for all of its issues "bay door shakes apart on re-entry" wasn't one of them. Stop being a whiny baby.

[Anonymous No.11599559]

>>11599500
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrfUQMiFPNc

>1989
>nasa cares about the children

>2020
>nasa has munchausen's by proxy for boeing

[Anonymous No.11599561]

>>11599558
The shuttle was a glider that landed on a runway. This is a belly flopper.

[Anonymous No.11599563]

>>11599537
Not compared to when it's fully loaded with propellant and taking off, or when it hits max-Q. It does hit the atmosphere going much faster than when it was taking off, but that portion of reentry is where the atmosphere is barely thick enough to cause aerodynamic effects, most of the trouble for the high speed part of reentry comes from thermal effects which are covered by the tiles which have supposedly been blowtorched at Starship's expected reentry temperatures for hours at a time to no ill effect.

[Anonymous No.11599572]

>>11599561
That has nothing to do with re-entry forces, by the time you have a significant enough atmosphere for gliding flight you've already gone through re-entry.

[Anonymous No.11599576]

Atlas V will be cucked forever by Falcon 9 on May 27 haha

[Anonymous No.11599582]

>>11599576
>faulting ULA (PBUH) for Boeing's fuckery
Atlas V is CUTE
Atlas V is POWERFUL

[Anonymous No.11599616]

make way, optimal Mars government system coming through

[Anonymous No.11599624]

>>11599616
>not anarco-primitivist mars colony
Doomed

[Anonymous No.11599637]

>>11599616
Wrong shade of blue

[Anonymous No.11599639]

>>11599624
what about the Big Stick theory of operation

[Anonymous No.11599642]

>>11599637
nah senpai, Autarchism. A lighter, more pleasant blue

[Anonymous No.11599661]

>>11599624
>Lol let’s reduce living standards by thousands of years

[Anonymous No.11599694]

SN4 pressure test is tomorrow night

[Anonymous No.11599717]

>>11599371
Hey I like this chap, even if his wife is a lawyer

[Anonymous No.11599723]

Would an asteroid that has been extensively mined for resources look porous like in this picture, or would it look like a typical asteroid just smaller and with a rougher surface?

[Anonymous No.11599734]

>>11598482
>>11598554
>>11598668
Follow yer roight 'and rule by ways of yer orbit round the stah an' 'ere's yer norf an souf, simple as

[Anonymous No.11599740]

>>11599723
I think it would be covered in a lot of tiny boreholes where samples were taken and one huge excavated pit if possible where the primary load of valuable elements is being removed.

[Anonymous No.11599749]

>>11599297
Two doors doesn't solve anything.

[Anonymous No.11599759]

>>11599440
"Just use a crane, cranes aren't hard" - Elon

[Anonymous No.11599760]

>>11599723
Those holes are made by piddocks.

[Anonymous No.11599781]

>>11599078
Nononono. You can‘t just implement things you talked about! It‘s not fair!

[Anonymous No.11599784]

>>11599471
X = whatever fall height you can expect not to hurt you on Earth
Y = whatever fall height you can expect not to hurt you on Mars

(8*X) / 3 = Y

So if you can fall three meters on Earth and be okay, you can fall 8 meters on Mars and be okay.

[Anonymous No.11599797]

>>11598415
>implying was made to watch stars

[Anonymous No.11599827]

>>11599537
????

[Anonymous No.11599835]

>>11599582
Altas V uses BROWN ALUMINUM

[Anonymous No.11599840]

>>11599723
It would be covered in kevlar bags to contain dust, and instead of tunneling the miners would simply lift large chunks of the asteroid off at once for processing.

[Anonymous No.11599852]

>>11599827
fuck you reminded me, my next fluids II CFD is due Monday

[Anonymous No.11599887]

>>11599852
what causes that area of increased pressure behind the object? is it just because of the heating in that area, or some other effect?

[Anonymous No.11599893]

>>11599887
push air apart
create a cavity behind
air rushes in to fill it up
piles up in the center

[Anonymous No.11599919]

>>11599887
oblique shock can be funny, if it's 'weak' or 'strong'. A better simulation run to show why that happens would be the mach contours. Although much of the work we've done so far is regarding sonic isosurfaces in laval nozzles, and the different cases associated with it.

[Anonymous No.11599934]

>>11598465
>lots uv planets got a norf

[Anonymous No.11599943]

>>11599919

[Anonymous No.11599988]

Miss me yet?

[Anonymous No.11600032]

>>11599887
Think of water in the wake of a boat. First it gets shoved away by the hull, but then the boat is gone. This leaves a void. Water rushes in from the sides to fill the void, and gains momentum. The water accelerates until the moment that the water returns to level for a moment, then starts to decelerate as momentum carries it higher than level. This cycle repeats several times with energy losses each time until all of the energy is converted to heat.

You can directly compare waves in a boat wake to supersonic air flow simply by interpreting wave height as air pressure. The pattern I described above is exactly like the shock diamonds that form in over-expanded rocket exhaust flow, and the shock waves that form and collapse behind very fast objects in atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.11600038]

>>11599988
this shit was perfect for exposing the popsci fags who genuiunely believed it was gonna be the future of spaceflight

[Anonymous No.11600116]

>>11599624
how the fuck would that even work

[Anonymous No.11600119]

>>11599642
>martian juche
yes

[Anonymous No.11600133]

>>11599988
>a fucking compass

[Anonymous No.11600165]

>>11599639
All the first Mars colonies will be American, so that's a given.

[Anonymous No.11600185]

>>11598482
'ate antispinward

[Anonymous No.11600187]

'ate antispinward

[Anonymous No.11600202]

>>11600187
Kek

[Anonymous No.11600261]

Problems of the expander-cycle:
>too little heat to evaporte fuel
>too little heat to evaporate oxydizer
>ice forming on the edge of the nozzle
But combustion efficiency is great.

Problems of the aerospike:
>too much heat
>poor combustion eficiency
>edge of nozzle is close to melting
But it works great at any altitude.

Why not combine both for lower stages?
>aerospike gets hot
>heat evaporates fuel/oxydizer
>evaporated fuel/oxydizer drives turbopumps
>gaseous fuel/oxydizer have great combustion efficiency
>specific impulse is great at any altitude
And as an additional bonus:
The turbopumps only have to deal with rather low temperatures.

[Anonymous No.11600284]

>>11600261
I too saw Everyday Astronaut's video. The largest issue is that the features unique to aerospikes can be met by 'traditional' engines being used in particular ways. The aerospikes' good efficiency across a wide range of external air pressures can be worked around by using TSTOs with different engines at each stage. The short length of aerospikes can also be achieved with many smaller bell engines.

Aerospikes are good at doubling as a heatshield which can be useful on a reusable rocket to potentially simplify them.

[Anonymous No.11600290]

>>11600261
>why not combine both
because aerospikes already carry a weight penalty, adding anything on top of one is just extra-retarded
>driving a turbopump with an aerospike
the aerospike is just the equivalent of the nozzle, you still need to feed it with a turbopump itself. this is turbo-retarded

[Anonymous No.11600296]

>>11598465
>>11600187
I’ve conquered all the space ports
I’m never gonna stop
Yuxiang pork and cabbage
I’ve ate the fucking lot
Irradiated beef and jellied pike perch
I’m a big fat bastard
And I like my fucking space food

[Anonymous No.11600321]

>>11600261
It might be mechanically possible, but to my knowledge no such expanderspike has been proposed, much less tested to verify the potential upsides. One problem I can imagine is that more complex fuel cycles means more dry mass. This will exacerbate one of the other issues with Aerospikes, which is that they're pretty heavy compared to de-leval bell engines. Personally though there really hasn't been a "modern" aerospike design at the large scale.

[Anonymous No.11600341]

>>11600116
>Terraform Mars
>Destroy all the tech used to do it

[Anonymous No.11600351]

>>11600341
Y tho

[Anonymous No.11600364]

how are people on the earth supposed to play vidya with people from mars? there has to be a way that doesnt involve waiting an hour to communicate roundtrip.

[Anonymous No.11600369]

>>11600351
so humanity survives but doesn't ruin another planet

[Anonymous No.11600378]

>>11600369
aside from the fact that you're a bleeding heart nancy crying over dead hunks of raw material that happened to coalesce in a certain orbit, by the time anyone terraforms mars humanity (in whatever form) will have already expanded far beyond
enjoy your fuckin ugga bugga

[Anonymous No.11600381]

>>11600261
Aero spikes are a meme that reduces Isp

[Anonymous No.11600386]

>>11600364
People can barely play vidya together on different sides of the same planet due to latency issues. You'd need something simple and turn based, like chess or Pokémon.

[Anonymous No.11600389]

>>11600369
“””ruin”””
Kys treehugger. Humans matter, not planets or animals or trees or anything else.

[Anonymous No.11600401]

>>11600364
given how much we are used to instant communication, fuck vidya earthlings and martians probably won't even communicate that much period. early on it will be a big novelty and we will of course, but as it becomes something we take for granted people will gradually isolate.

you could see that as a problem or you could see that as mars inevitably shifting away from earth's thumb and becoming its own society

[Anonymous No.11600412]

I'm sure we'll come up with some clever tricks to give the illusion of real time gaming.

[Anonymous No.11600425]

>>11600401
Isolation is retarded.

[Anonymous No.11600428]

>>11600284
>Aerospikes are good at doubling as a heatshield
No, without hundreds of liters per second of coolant flow they'd just melt during reentry.

[Anonymous No.11600434]

>>11600290
>the irony
do you even know what an expander cycle is?

[Anonymous No.11600441]

>>11600425
>just keep in close contact with mars when everyone on earth is milliseconds away and everyone on mars is an hour away
that's not how human beings work

[Anonymous No.11600442]

Soyuz Launch in 1 min

https://youtu.be/21X5lGlDOfg

[Anonymous No.11600445]

>>11600364
The laws of relativity and positions of the earth and mars means it currently takes between 4-24 minutes for radio signals to reach each planet. Under best conditions you will always have at least a 3-23 minute latency issue using some kind of advanced optical wireless communication system simply because the signal cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

If you want to go completely out there in theories of how this can be bypassed then wormholes would be your cup of tea.

[Anonymous No.11600453]

>>11600445
>wormholes
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11600456]

>>11600442
F

[Anonymous No.11600460]

>>11600445
>>11600453
Traversible wormholes are impossible. Non-traversible wormholes are fine, though.

[Anonymous No.11600462]

>>11600442
why are launches outside of spacex ignored?

[Anonymous No.11600464]

>>11600462
My guess most "launch enthusiasts" nowadays just follow whatever trends which is mainly SpaceX and maybe ULA. Others that have been following launches for years keep tabs on all space programs

[Anonymous No.11600465]

>>11600462
Dead end legacy tech extended way beyond any reasonable career duration.

[Anonymous No.11600466]

>>11600441
Eight minutes is piss compared to how long it would take for notes to travel across continents and oceans in the 1800s

[Anonymous No.11600470]

>>11600460
>It’s impossible because the holy books decree it so

[Anonymous No.11600471]

>>11600442
holy crap, that isn't good

[Anonymous No.11600474]

>>11600462
SpaceX does alot of work to build public interest and make the launch interesting to watch. Pretty much everyone else show their launches in a fairly underwhelming way.

[Anonymous No.11600475]

>>11600453
>NOOOOO YOU CANNOT THEORIZE A WORMHOLE THAT YOU CAN FEED A SIGNAL THROUGH THINK ABOUT THE EXOTIC MATERINNO! WHAT ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FEEDBACK OF RADIATION!

[Anonymous No.11600476]

>>11600470
Traversing a worm hole actually requires faster than light travel as you approach the opening.

[Anonymous No.11600477]

PERFECT LAUNCH

[Anonymous No.11600479]

>the solar arrays are flapping in the wind
uhh...

[Anonymous No.11600481]

>>11600476
We’ll go faster than light eventually.

[Anonymous No.11600485]

>Launch to docking in 3 hours

Based

[Anonymous No.11600487]

>>11600479
They're not flapping in the wind though. They're rebounding from being opened up. You can even see their osculations be dampened.

[Anonymous No.11600490]

>>11600466
and no one became culturally isolated or distinct when settling over the fucking oceans in the 1800s right? the point isn't that no one will ever communicate back and forth, it's that being orders of magnitude slower than doing so within your own planet means natural isolation

[Anonymous No.11600495]

If we put the game server between Earth and Mars then that's only half way they need to go. Boom, lag down to 2 minutes.

[Anonymous No.11600499]

>>11600490
>the point isn't that no one will ever communicate back and forth

Baseless assertion with zero evidence with zero reasoning behind it. I’d be happy to communicate with a sixteen minute lag.

[Anonymous No.11600500]

>>11600499
nigger you can't even communicate right right fuckin now

[Anonymous No.11600501]

>>11600500
Seethe

[Anonymous No.11600504]

>>11600501
read

[Anonymous No.11600508]

>>11600504
Read. A sixteen minute lag is not enough to deter me from communicating.

[Anonymous No.11600513]

>>11600508
re-read your own post >>11600499
look harder

[Anonymous No.11600525]

>>11600508
Idiot.
He said "the point IS NOT that no one will ever communicate back and forth"

[Anonymous No.11600531]

Is SpaceX the only company in the world which build all rocket engine, rocket stages and spacecraft for a human launch system?

[Anonymous No.11600532]

>>11600525
Still wrong. Martians will shitpost like anyone else

[Anonymous No.11600536]

>>11600531
No. Doesn't Blue Origin make everything as well?

[Anonymous No.11600542]

>>11600536
Blue Origin hasn’t made anything ever it’s a tax scam

[Anonymous No.11600546]

>>11600536
suborbital is joke

[Anonymous No.11600547]

>>11600542
Source?

[Anonymous No.11600550]

>>11600531
Blue Origin also does it, but as other anons pointed out, it has yet to launch a proper rocket

[Anonymous No.11600551]

>>11599852
Is that a simulation or just graphing a formula? Nice graph either way.

[Anonymous No.11600557]

>>11600532
we'll see. it's really easy to say "i'd just shitpost across the time gap", it's another thing to actually do it day in, day out. you'd have to really loves earthlings to keep doing it once there's enough martians that marschan is bumping, and what kind of weirdo loves earthlings

[Anonymous No.11600579]

>>11600532
>be me, a Terran
>open up Lagrangian basket weaving forum
>see new post on a thread about belter politics
>it's just a wall of anti-belter obscenities and other racial slurs
>wtf.sstv
>check the flag of the poster
>mrw it's martian

[Anonymous No.11600580]

>>11600557
I see no reason to limit myself. The universe is big and I want to experience and embrace all within it,

[Anonymous No.11600593]

>>11600580
BIG
BLACK
COSMOS

[Anonymous No.11600595]

>>11600579
what are you gonna do about it, earf boi

[Anonymous No.11600596]

>Hey I wonder what Blue Origin are upt-
>Only recent news article was about Bezzos onions faced employees complaining about having to work during the Corvid-19 outbreak and that a launch set for 10th April was canceled without any new dates set
Like poetry. This is why Musk hired latino welders. They'll do anything for a dime no complaints or questions asked.

[Anonymous No.11600600]

>>11600596
They work and eat from a taco truck. Seems like good living

[Anonymous No.11600604]

>>11600596
Source on Blue Origin employees complaining about having to work? Because I would sell my left nut to work there (anywhere in the aerospace industry really, except Boeing).

[Anonymous No.11600608]

>>11600580
i for one am excited for humans to start spreading out so far that islands of communication prop up. that's how we will get communities that don't just feel like earth science bases but their own fully realized culture

[Anonymous No.11600623]

>>11600604
It's ((the verge)) so be warned.
http://archive.is/Nk9gO

[Anonymous No.11600624]

>>11600596
To be honest New Shepherd could launch every day and it wouldn't really blow my skirt up, but it does say a lot about the company culture

>“What is essential about a vehicle that flies potentially billionaires to space?” one employee asks.

This from a dude who works for a company that outputs nothing and supports itself on a billionaire's stipend

[Anonymous No.11600636]

>>11600499
I would not read your faggotry or bother explaining how gay you are if I had to wait 32 minutes for you to understand it

[Anonymous No.11600642]

>>11600624
If they had actually launched new shepherd two or theee days back to back, it would say something
If they had destructively tested it, that would also say something

I don’t see blue origin as anything other than another old space company with no real ambitions

[Anonymous No.11600652]

>>11600551
it's the solution. our results are supposed to look like that. prof only cares if we can get solidworks to
a) shit out the same result
b) how well we analyze the results, which is the bulk of the grade
also c) if we're competent with formatting and readability. God bless Ed Tufte.

[Anonymous No.11600661]

>>11600652
>>11600551
check this shit out, Laval knew what the fuck he was talking about I tell you what. Overexpanded, clear as day. Cool when the theory matches with experiments.

[Anonymous No.11600665]

>I don’t see blue origin as anything other than another old space company with no real ambitions

This and it's so painfully obvious. They've made patience, cautiousness, and scrupulousness part of their operation ethos. This took a consideration like any other factor in rocket design and put it on a box that can't be challenged. Meanwhile spacex seems to be doing so well exactly because elon has never married an idea, only bad girlfriends.

[Anonymous No.11600677]

>>11600642
>I don’t see blue origin as anything other than another old space company with no real ambitions
What went awry? Blue Origin has perhaps the easiest reusable rocket flying right now, and yet they're taking longer to put humans on it than SpaceX did for the Falcon 9. Not to sound like SpaceX has some sort of miracle working for them, but what are they doing differently that's allowing them to move forward faster than their competition?

[Anonymous No.11600682]

>>11600677
Virgin Galactic too. They literally started out with a manned suborbital spacecraft and they spent 15 years doing nothing with it...

[Anonymous No.11600690]

>>11600665
protip if your mach isosurface is inside your expanding section like this, you're pressure ratio is FUCKED

[Anonymous No.11600697]

>>11600682
To be fair for them, they're responsible for the first fatality in private space flight. That sets a very grim mood for everyone involved.

[Anonymous No.11600698]

>>11600665
Blue origin had this motherfucker complete in early 2016, at least. From there it was not until august of 2019 that they announced 100% throttle testing. Almost four fucking years sitting on two complete engines because they would rather baby them than risk having to replace them.

[Anonymous No.11600701]

>>11600682
>>11600697
>The Virgin Galactic vs ChadX and Chad Origin.

[Anonymous No.11600707]

>>11600682
Their branding annoys me, look at the spine of this plane here, implying a vehicle that sees the earth's curvature and lands is the successor to apollo. And the one that broke up was named enterprise. Don't name drop that shit unless you are going to mars, the space shuttle that never went to space was crushing enough.

[Anonymous No.11600711]

>>11600698
This, the poor thing is essentially a sculpture that costs more than your average commiefornia condo. Can you even call it a rocket engine if you haven't blown at least a few of them up in tests? Fuck, remember when NASA and Rocketdyne were ambitious enough to just blow up a couple F1s to figure out the combustion instability problem? If they dragged ass then like they are now, not a single human boot would have ever touched the moon.

[Anonymous No.11600714]

>>11600707
Something something results over rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.11600719]

>>11600697
People die all the time it’s no biggie

[Anonymous No.11600720]

>>11600665
>>11600677
In regards to their culture is because they don't have someone on the top pushing them, Bezos main thing is Amazon, BO is just a nice side project/legacy for him, he himself already said that he won't live to see his dream (O'Neil colonies), and there isn't anyone below him in BO that pushes hard either, so the company is set on this very slow path because everyone involved knows that they won't see the fruits of their labor, while in SpaceX you have not only Musk pushing for it but you also have someone like Shotwell who is also as driven as Musk

[Anonymous No.11600722]

>What’s Blue Origin’s motto? “Gradatim Ferociter” is Latin for “Step by Step, Ferociously.” Bezos says that’s his approach to spaceflight. “If you’re building a flying vehicle, you can’t cut any corners. If you do, it’s going to be [just] an illusion that it’s going to make it faster. … You have to do it step by step, but you do want to do it ferociously.”

>Why is there a winged hourglass on Blue Origin’s coat of arms? Bezos says that’s “a Victorian cemetery symbol which means ‘time is fleeting.’ We don’t have forever.”

>Why is Blue Origin’s mascot a tortoise? The lesson from the fable of the hare and the tortoise is that “slow and steady wins the race.” Bezos puts a different twist on the tale: “Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast.” The mascot also may be a commentary on other commercial space ventures that leap into aggressive schedules but don’t end up meeting them, like the hare in the fable. After each successful New Shepard flight, Blue Origin’s team paints a tortoise on the capsule’s hatch. And during last weekend’s banquet, Bezos showed off a pair of tortoise cufflinks (which you can buy on Etsy for $48).

This is basically poe's law. Why people waiting on space flight deserve this special hell I don't know.

[Anonymous No.11600729]

>>11600697
They should just tell the truth and tell everyone to expect the price to be as high as air travel. Frontiers aren't free.

[Anonymous No.11600735]

>>11600711
>Fuck, remember when NASA and Rocketdyne were ambitious enough to just blow up a couple F1s to figure out the combustion instability problem?
They also used bombs inside the combustion chambers to induce the instability in a controlled manner.

>>11600720
>Bezos main thing is Amazon, BO is just a nice side project/legacy for him, he himself already said that he won't live to see his dream (O'Neil colonies)
Despite wanting O'Neill cylinders (that's two l's), that is a very small brain way of thinking. There's still plenty of cool and aspiring stuff to aim for that can be done within our lifetime. Wanting to jump straight to a sci-fi future without wanting to work on the stuff between now and later is just childish.

[Anonymous No.11600751]

>>11600735
Where did it all go so wrong? How can an engineer claim to love his rocketfu if he isn't willing to deliberately blow her up at least once?

[Anonymous No.11600792]

>>11599827
Actually the right side scenario is going to produce some aero forces trying to pull it open. The curve is going to produce a region of negative pressure.

[Anonymous No.11600805]

>>11598419
How's your manned spaceflight program going along, europe? Oh, that's right, you don't have one.

[Anonymous No.11600838]

>>11600735
>>11600751
Bezos has embraced the DC swamp. He's running BO like a Beltway oldspace contractor for the same reason Amazon's HQ2 is two subway stops from the Pentagon in Arlington

[Anonymous No.11600883]

>>11600661
Nice!
>Cool when the theory matches with experiments.
Like that one time in my first lab where i got g~28 m/s2 top kek. But no, seriously, it's always very exciting when shit just works, even though one knows that's to be expected.

[Anonymous No.11600900]

>>11600883
hah, meanwhile my 8th grade science fair torsion balance got a value of g to be 100m/s/s, BUT at least I showed that gravity exists in the first place. Noticeable change when the weights were swapped. Man that was a long time ago.

[Anonymous No.11600907]

>>11600900
Gravity is not real

[Anonymous No.11600918]

Is it possible to make a suborbital hopper rocket(?)plane for fast point to point travel? I mean that can do intercontinental jumps. I mean if musks plan of point to point starship were to get some use, I don't see why this wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.11600920]

Could the gravitational model of trade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade)) be used to roughly model trade across the solar system if DeltaV were used instead of distance? Could it be used to find where the most likely centers of trade will end up? Would travel time have to be incorporated (such as multiplying the transit time by the DeltaV to make a pseudo-distance which is then used in the calculation)?

[Anonymous No.11600925]

>>11600907
nah dude it's pretty real. I just found these old photos in an archive on my computer, thought you all might find them interesting.
Here's the basic setup, upside down fishtank, balance is made out of a ruler with a mirror on it. large weights outside on opposite 'corners'.

[Anonymous No.11600926]

>>11600918
I don't see why not technically speaking. Might end up being better than Starship since it would be specifically designed for the purpose. The politics and regulation of this might make it unfeasible due to sound restriction regulations (rockets are extremely loud) and due to fears that the transport rocket might actually be an ICBM.

[Anonymous No.11600932]

>>11600926
What’s wrong with ICBMs

[Anonymous No.11600933]

>>11600925
measuring the wobble is done with a cheap webcam slapped on a vintage questar telescope. You look at the mirror which looks at the other ruler on the ground. Then you run some time-lapse software and take data points every couple minutes. Gloriously jank. How the hell Cavendish did it so well back in the day I have no clue.

[Anonymous No.11600936]

>>11600932
They can level cities in an instant.

[Anonymous No.11600953]

IM GONNA BLOW UP!

[Anonymous No.11600970]

>>11600926
Yeah I guess the ICBM concern is real. Maybe between strong allies, and without going off-course. But yeah that pretty much kills it unless there is some workaround.

[Anonymous No.11600979]

>>11600936
Only if they’ve got warheads on them lol

[Anonymous No.11600985]

>>11600665
>elon has never married an idea
Except Mars's his ultimate goal, has not changed since SpaceX's first day.

[Anonymous No.11600987]

>>11598482
North and South are one of the only directions that still apply in the context of the solar system

[Anonymous No.11600993]

>>11600987
False
Prograde/retrograde, radial/antiradial, normal/antinormal

[Anonymous No.11600996]

>>11600993
yes, those are the directions in space
but the Solar System still has a North/South side, but it doesn't have an east or a west or an up or a down

[Anonymous No.11601002]

Do we know how much it costs to launch Dreamchaser cargo version to the ISS?

[Anonymous No.11601003]

>>11600993
what about Uranus

[Anonymous No.11601013]

Are any other national space agencies seeing success in funding the commercialization of spaceflight like NASA is?

[Anonymous No.11601015]

>>11600751
I don't know if you're the guy who designed the rocket waifus, but if not, tell him that Starship Waifu's already been made and that his services aren't really necessary.

[Anonymous No.11601018]

Soyuz docking to ISS live NOW:

https://youtu.be/21X5lGlDOfg

[Anonymous No.11601021]

>>11601018
Cool shots of the soyuz RCS

[Anonymous No.11601026]

This dumb thing I designed may be the solution to radiation issues Starship may have. The idea is to launch the mothership itself into orbit, assemble the modules via payload starships, and have crew starships deliver crew, and more importantly, equipment to block out radiation.
You could have Dragon capsules docked on the sides of the ship. Maybe even mount weaponry on the trusses, I don't know.

[Anonymous No.11601030]

>>11601026
Why do you keep posting this?

[Anonymous No.11601035]

>>11601030
Because I want other people to make up stupid ideas like this.

[Anonymous No.11601046]

>>11601026
Radiation is harmless

[Anonymous No.11601067]

>>11600032
Underrated.

[Anonymous No.11601073]

>>11601046

[Anonymous No.11601087]

>>11599395

[Anonymous No.11601098]

>>11601026
I gotta say, I love the persistence, you're hired.

[Anonymous No.11601116]

>>11601067
Thank you
; ~ ;

[Anonymous No.11601156]

>>11600920
That's basically how The Expanse works minus the magically efficient fusion drives. Earth and Mars can both reach each other and Ceres easy enough, but they tend to use Ceres as a transit port for going further out.

[Anonymous No.11601216]

>>11599277
I used linux to grab the raw image out of the pdf in native resolution

[Anonymous No.11601227]

>>11600462
Spacex fanboyism.
It's also true though that spacex is doing new things, while soyuz is definitely reliable but hardly new.

[Anonymous No.11601240]

>>11601216
Either Elon is shitposting or he's hinting at a Starship 2 and SuperDuperHeavy capable of lifting a fucking late model steam locomotive into orbit... and I think an 18m doubled diameter would get you that size.

[Anonymous No.11601241]

>>11601240
nah dude
train engines weigh like 150 tons

[Anonymous No.11601247]

>>11601241
You mean 50% more than the existing Starship's lift capacity to LEO in reusable config?

[Anonymous No.11601251]

>>11601247
no, I mean Starship's lift capacity

[Anonymous No.11601256]

>>11601241
A DRB Class 52 with tender is right at 100 tons.
Hey... that'd be a pretty good first payload to orbit for SS

[Anonymous No.11601266]

>>11601026
>possible missile turret rails
Why the fuck would anyone use a slow, hulking spacecraft for military purposes?

[Anonymous No.11601270]

>>11601266
>slow
Compared to what, exactly? A TIE fighter? So long as we're using chemical rockets, an orbit is an orbit.

[Anonymous No.11601277]

>>11601256
I kind of want the test payload for Starship to be the first tunnel boring machine that the Boring Company bought to figure out how to build them better. You could have Starman II riding it like Major T. J. Kong.

[Anonymous No.11601291]

a
fucking
train

[Anonymous No.11601294]

[Anonymous No.11601316]

So in realistic laymen's terms, what are the steps that are actually needed to achieve Orbital Industry, or even Moon Industry, and more importantly, how can I help accelerate development?

[Anonymous No.11601394]

1 month until old space is kill

[Anonymous No.11601395]

>>11601316
>So in realistic laymen's terms, what are the steps that are actually needed to achieve Orbital Industry, or even Moon Industry
Gorillions of tons launched to orbit per year. Once launching things to the moon is cheap it's just a matter of actually funding and building a base.
>and more importantly, how can I help accelerate development
Yell at your congresscritter and Senators if they try to reduce NASA's manned spaceflight budget. Get an aerospace engineering degree and apply to SpaceX or some other company working in the space.

[Anonymous No.11601403]

Someone might have already said it but why is Blue Origin taking so long to launch people? It's not like their capsule has to keep people alive for more than fifteen minutes. They don't need RCS or advanced heat shields or docking mechanisms or even solar panels. It literally is a tin can with parachutes and an abort motor. They've flown is several times too in its "Flight Configuration". So why haven't they put a person in it.

SpaceX is flying people on the second flight of their Dragon 2 Capsule (Or I guess fourth if you count the Pad Abort and IFA). The Dragon 2 is way more complex than the New Shepard Capsule, and D2 flew four years after Blue's!

What the F u c k Blue Origin? You could have put people into space in 2016! Are they retarded or something?

[Anonymous No.11601424]

>>11601394
>TFW no Falcon 9 GF
It hurts. Oh God, it hurts.

[Anonymous No.11601432]

>>11601316
Unless some miraculous and insanely valuable metamaterial or whatnot can only be manufactured in microgravity, there's not going to be a whole lot of "industry" in Earth orbit beyond satellite infrastructure, tourism, and research. Lunar industry will require one crazy rich fuck or a consortium thereof to kick things off by doing proof-of-concept prospecting, mining, and refining. Maybe someone else will go hard on the water mining angle and sell that in water form or as rocket fuel to orbital customers. The business case will be shaky for a while, but if they can pull off local manufacturing of pressurized modules then you can start having a larger permanent Lunar population and stuff will bootstrap from there.

[Anonymous No.11601481]

>>11600970
It could work inside of NATO countries, wich isn't exactly a small group.

[Anonymous No.11601487]

>>11600792
Can't be more than 1 atm though

[Anonymous No.11601507]

>>11600595
imagine not burning yourself while flying in that

[Anonymous No.11601512]

>>11601316
It's a chicken and egg problem:
>we don't have asteroid mining in earth orbit
>we don't have any facilities to produce stuff in orbit
>therefore we have to launch everything for thousands per kg into orbit
>because of that, the initial investment is insanely high
>as the initial investment is insanely high, we don't do asteroid mining

What you can realisticly do is to get a Starlink-plan in the near future.

[Anonymous No.11601516]

>>11601156
I still cringe at their Ceres being spun for "gravity" and not falling apart

[Anonymous No.11601529]

>>11600926
Space rockets are pretty poor ICBMs though

[Anonymous No.11601686]

good looking nose cone

[Anonymous No.11601701]

>>11598465
based and norfpilled

[Anonymous No.11601706]

>>11601294
will it have neopork85 written on it irl?

[Anonymous No.11601709]

>>11601706
it'll probably have U N I T E D S T A T E S on it somewhere

[Anonymous No.11601769]

>>11601516
Isn’t Ceres a differentiated body?

[Anonymous No.11601775]

>>11601247
>the existing starship lift capacity
is zero

[Anonymous No.11601815]

>>11600805
ESA is a partner in JWST, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.11601839]

>>11598448
>Already obsolete.
>Picture of power-point telescope inside power-point rocket.

Even if LUVOIR happened it wouldn't replace JWST's infrared capabilities. Reminder that LUVOIR will not happen for at least 20 years and it will probably be descoped and late like every big NASA telescope. It literally doesn't fit in the fucking budget, and this is before it has even been selected.

[Anonymous No.11601847]

>>11601839
>Reminder that JWST will not happen for at least 20 years

ftfy

[Anonymous No.11601868]

>>11601847

[Anonymous No.11601870]

>>11601847
In that case LUVOIR won't happen at all. There will be no room for a new flagship.

[Anonymous No.11601878]

Has anyone actually designed habitats for other planets let or will elon do that in house?

[Anonymous No.11601907]

>>11601878
There are promising 3D printing startups like AI SpaceFactory and their MARSHA habitat. I know that Bigelow is also having big problems, but their expandable modules have been proposed for a lunar base, no reason they couldn't be a temporary fix for Mars either

[Anonymous No.11601914]

>>11601516
Not only that, the energy required would be really enormous.

[Anonymous No.11601951]

>>11600805
guess who is building the european service module idiot

[Anonymous No.11601960]

>>11601878
>drill tunnel with tunnel boring machine
>line with pressed brick blocks
>put airlock on the end

There's your habitat, no need to overthink it.

[Anonymous No.11601978]

>>11601240
>>11601241
>>11601216
it's the LUVOIR space telescope, in true spacex fashion they just reused the render

[Anonymous No.11602023]

>>11601960
what about a liquid airlock? maybe they could use piss

[Anonymous No.11602026]

>>11602023
Pissy airlocks as far as the eye can see!

[Anonymous No.11602037]

>>11602023
>>11602026
there should never be a day on sfg without pisslocks

[Anonymous No.11602085]

>>11601686
>nosecone is on

[Anonymous No.11602090]

>>11601878
Just make a pressurized box lol

[Anonymous No.11602123]

>>11601686
so are there people literally camping outside the facility constantly filming?

[Anonymous No.11602145]

>>11602123
They also built a fucking 30ft tower with a solar-powered webcam on top halfway between the assembly and launch sites

[Anonymous No.11602164]

>>11602145
lol wow i assume they are getting paid for it.

[Anonymous No.11602177]

>>11601394
There is something about that black and white pattern

[Anonymous No.11602198]

SN5

[Anonymous No.11602219]

>>11602198
can't wait to see SN6 with the full flaps

[Anonymous No.11602221]

>>11602198
>Nosecone tip forms upper part of the LOX tank

Huh. They really are taking the “do not build a box inside another a box” principle to heart.

[Anonymous No.11602225]

>>11598419
>Hubble replacement
Why not simply launch another modified Keyhole satellite?
Or does this make glowniggers too angry?

[Anonymous No.11602227]

>>11602198
think about the rate of starship production once the process is fully matured holy fuck
we're finally living in the fucking future

[Anonymous No.11602229]

>>11602221
It's for weight distribution, the other header tank is down below

[Anonymous No.11602236]

>>11602229 replying to myself derp
Oh I just realized what you meant, that they cut the tip off of the header tank to use the nosecone. I think that's new. Clever.

[Anonymous No.11602237]

>>11602198
Strange. I thought the nose was where the payload went

[Anonymous No.11602241]

>>11602237
Things change as they break things.

[Anonymous No.11602251]

>>11602237
I think most of the cargo is below in the people mover version. In the cargo version, that area is so far forward that anything shoved up into it wouldn't be able to clear the lip for the cargo door, so I don't think it matters.

[Anonymous No.11602267]

>>11602198
That nosecone is looking really clean. Nice.

[Anonymous No.11602270]

Public Notice of Cameron County Order to Temporarily Close State Highway 4 and Boca Chica Beach.
Primary Date April 25, 2020 9:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. Closure Scheduled
Backup Date April 26, 2020 9:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. Closure Scheduled
Backup Date April 27, 2020 9:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. Closure Scheduled
Primary Date April 29, 2020 9:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. Closure Scheduled
Backup Date April 30, 2020 9:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. Closure Scheduled
Backup Date May 1, 2020 9:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. Closure Scheduled

[Anonymous No.11602274]

>>11602270
Guess they're puffing it up tonight then. Here's hoping some drunk asshole doesn't forget proper procedures on this one too.

[Anonymous No.11602288]

>>11602270
https://youtu.be/9UWN75DVN90
very nice

[Anonymous No.11602290]

>>11599078
if that was the case Roskosmos would be seen as a very strong institution

>low, medium budget at best
>achieve at fraction of a cost consistent, standardized missile launches
>solid safety standard

people don't want science, they want "science" of the wishy-washy variety. This is why old NASA died - it was literally family men with some bureaucrats that just launched stuff and nobody understood it other than enthusiasts.

[Anonymous No.11602299]

>>11602270
>bombs gone missing
Where I live they find about a bomb a month in the ground lol.
Not even small ones, usualy several hundred kg of explosives and ignitors that may go off any moment.

[Anonymous No.11602307]

>>11602270
Assembly of SN5 has started as SN4 is rolled into the test stands.
Let's just hope it's gonna be ok

[Anonymous No.11602323]

>>11602290
And that's why you should NEVER launch a mission without a high definition colour camera.
High quality images or even video is great PR stuff and cameras don't add much weight.
Livestreaming a launch on YT doesn't realy cost much either, but gathers a lot of public interest wich results in better funding and public acceptance.

[Anonymous No.11602340]

>>11602323
>public acceptance

i kinda feel the public is to blame. What did the public want? Instant gratification. What did the state want? A solid weapons research program, maneuverability over foreign terrain from space, espionage,etc.

The public moved on, and is now insisting on aesthethic pleasure rather than functionality. The best bet is for China to get involved so everyone gets spooked and starts investing but this will probably not happen.

[Anonymous No.11602369]

>>11602290
Roscosmos don't actually make the rockets. What they do make is missions with abysmal quality control. Koronas-Foton and Fobos-Grunt for example. Their currently around 50/50. Not counting all the missions which are "planned" but delayed every year.

[Anonymous No.11602382]

>>11602340
>SpaceX is literally saving space right now
>China! China will save us!
You can have China, I'll stay here

[Anonymous No.11602400]

>>11602382
Are you illiterate my friend?

[Anonymous No.11602438]

>>11602369
> don't actually make the rockets

sure thing.

[Anonymous No.11602468]

>>11600536
we're at the point where starship exists more than new glenn does
blue origin is a joke

[Anonymous No.11602492]

>>11602468
>8 flight planned cadence, four customers
Even if it's completely on time I don't see how it could do anything of relevance

[Anonymous No.11602582]

>>11602492
Most of the "contract" for NG from OneWeb and they already filed bankrupt.

[Anonymous No.11602592]

>>11602438
They don't.
Soyuz - Progress Rocket Space Centre (Paкeтнo-кocмичecкий цeнтp)
Angara/Proton - Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center (ГКHПЦ им. M. B. Хpýничeвa)
Energia made the N-7 rocket family and the N1 and more.

Roskosmos is like NASA, they draw up a list of specs and get companies to build it for them.

[Anonymous No.11602610]

>>11602492
Based on what Blue has told us it looks like they have yet to build one yet. We heard about them making hull panels recently, which means that they haven’t built any stages at all.

I sincerely hope Blue loses the NSSL competition. I want SpaceX and ULA to win.

ULA gave me some presents before homecoming back in 2018 because I asked out my then gf with a poster with ULA stuff on it.

[Anonymous No.11602704]

>>11602468
What the fuck is taking Blue Origin so long?

[Anonymous No.11602755]

>>11602369
>Roscosmos don't actually make the rockets.
Wrong.
>What they do make is missions with abysmal quality control. Koronas-Foton and Fobos-Grunt for example.
Fobos-Grunt troubles has little to do with quality control and everything to do with NPOL rushing it beyond any reasonable measure to fit into the Mars launch window, after being busy making a large batch of remote sensing sats for the military, because of the erratic funding.

>>11602592
No, Roskosmos is not like NASA at all. It's not a space agency, it's a state-owned corporation, incorporating the subsidiaries like Khrunichev or TsNIIMash. It's a huge corruption circle, NASA doesn't even come close in that regard. It was always like this, even before it got reformed into an enterprise. Lumping it all up just allowed them to become less transparent (ex. not report many things publicly). There aren't a lot of independent companies, most of them are small-to-medium companies making very specific products. Energia was a private company since 1994 but the government took it back illegally (I'm serious) when they saw it becoming successful.

Moreover, Roscosmos is focused on the money, it's not interested in science like some parts of the NASA (JPL arguably is semi-separate from NASA but still). Money flow from IKI, LBP, IMBP and many other scientific institutions (who organize experiments) to the Roskosmos organizations. See the troubles with the Spektr-RG ground part as the example.

I can write a lot about Russian space industry, Khrunichev pillaging by a certain clique of corrupted bureaucrats, jailing people and murdering them in jail, all this is well known in Russian media but is new to many anons there. But it's probably not that interesting and I'm too lazy anyway.

[Anonymous No.11602839]

>>11602755

Does the Russian space industry even have a future?

[Anonymous No.11602854]

>>11602839
Maybe doing launches for countries that aren't allowed to use US companies.

The Chinese can't exactly contract out with SpaceX to launch some spy satellites to keep an eye on the US.

[Anonymous No.11602866]

>>11602839
Depends on what you call future. Future stagnation is also future. Keeping some expertise, the national satellite fleet, some kind of manned program etc. Moving forward, not much unless somebody decides to turn it over, which is unlikely in the current business/political climate and economic crisis.

>>11602854
Space industry is much more than just commercial launches

[Anonymous No.11602873]

>>11602270
>Cryo expected to begin at 9pm, assuming all tests go right this afternoon

[Anonymous No.11602896]

>>11602866
What else would the Russians be doing?

They've got GLONASS, and I'm presuming reasonably good communication and surveillance capabilities, but if they don't have a commercial market, they're reduced to an arm of the Russian government.

[Anonymous No.11602921]

>>11602198
How is SN5 almost stack-ready? This'll be on the pad days after SN4 RUDs.

[Anonymous No.11602928]

>>11602921
>How is SN5 almost stack ready

The starship prototypes are pretty cheat desu. Stainless steel is touted by SpaceX as being $3/kg. With each Starship prototype weighing around 150 or so tons, that means SN4 cost half a million at most in construction cost.

I have no idea how much labor is, but it’s likely that the work to build Starship is more expensive than the ship itself.

Anyhow they’ve also been building many at a time. I guarantee SN6 is being built already as well.

[Anonymous No.11602931]

>>11601978
oh shit that's even better than what I thought

[Anonymous No.11602932]

>>11602896
>What else would the Russians be doing?
As a national program - probe science, manned exploration, remote sensing, comms, navigation etc, just like Japanese for example. Space program is not just about money, it's about national security, tech independence, driving science and tech in the country etc.

>if they don't have a commercial market
It can be changed theoretically since the expertise is here and will be for quite some time, even with all this stagnation; it just has to be organized. But likely not in practice, the weather vane has to turn for that. Besides, commercial launch services is not the only market available.

>they're reduced to an arm of the Russian government.
Obviously, and that's the way it is now. Protons changed that for a while, but Khrunichev got razed by a top manager gang pretending to raise the efficiency by transferring the production to Omsk, because the land it stood on in Moscow was worth more than the entire federal space program.

[Anonymous No.11602939]

>>11602704
They are working slow ferociously

[Anonymous No.11603049]

the future is:
SSTO person transport
TSTO cargo transport
orbit-to-orbit transfer vehicle
SSTO/TSTO upper stage lands on surface (TSTO becomes SSTO on less massive bodies)

[Anonymous No.11603061]

>>11603049
wrong
orbit-to-orbit transfer vehicles are memes
SSTO is also a meme and fake and gay

[Anonymous No.11603067]

>>11603061
>orbit-to-orbit transfer vehicles are memes

Prove it

[Anonymous No.11603069]

>>11601403
>Are they retarded or something?
slow and steady wins the race :)

[Anonymous No.11603071]

>>11603061
>orbit-to-orbit transfer vehicles are memes
you're a meme. Building a giant metal balloon in space is the only way of being able to ignore launch windows.

[Anonymous No.11603078]

>>11603061
t.

[Anonymous No.11603083]

>>11603049
no

[Anonymous No.11603084]

Bros... I don't want this one to blow up too...

For real though, holy shit is this moving fast. Can't wait to see this shit doing hops.

[Anonymous No.11603089]

>>11601769
At least partially, but that hardly matters. In the show they literally spun up Ceres so that it'd act like a giant rotating habitat and have significant artificial G inside. Problem is, Ceres is held together by gravity, so if you have centrifugal forces that are several times stronger than gravity due to fast spin rate, Ceres should simply pancake and fly apart. It wouldn't make sense to do even if Cares could spin that fast and hold together, because it'd be far faster and easier to dig dig pits in the ground and have rotating habitats built inside them, while using the excavated material to construct and protect even more habitats in orbit.

[Anonymous No.11603091]

>>11603083
I hope you don't unironically think we're going to keep doing this all in one vehicle thing forever, anon...

[Anonymous No.11603094]

>>11601870
Is this a rare pepe?

[Anonymous No.11603096]

>>11603067
>burning propellant when you have a perfectly good atmosphere RIGHT THERE
orbit-to-orbit stuff only makes sense when there's no atmosphere to push off of, for example when going from GTO to GEO and never coming back (in which case you just leave it up there attached to your comsat) (this is what people do right now)
for everything else it makes more sense to just hit that atmosphere

[Anonymous No.11603102]

>>11601839
>Even if LUVOIR happened it wouldn't replace JWST's infrared capabilities
Are you dumb? It's literally in the name.
LUVIOR stands for "Large Ultraviolet, Optical, Infra-Red surveyor". If NASA retards didn't get giant boners from making pretty acronyms it'd be named LOUIS, of course.

[Anonymous No.11603108]

>>11603102
LUVOIR is Hubble but big, it could do near-infrared
James Web is far-infrared, which is a very specialized application

[Anonymous No.11603115]

>>11602164
Nope

[Anonymous No.11603119]

>>11603096
Only a few destinations in the solar system actually have atmospheres usable for aerobraking. Even if you can aerobrake, it’s vastly easier from an engineering perspective to design a craft that’s never supposed to land, and carries little parasites to drop wherever.

[Anonymous No.11603122]

>>11603119
only a few destinations in the solar system are actually worth going to

[Anonymous No.11603124]

>>11602237
The prototype versions won't carry payloads. The nose cone only needs to be installed to get the right aerodynamics for belly-flopping and back-flipping.

[Anonymous No.11603131]

>>11603122
Anywhere is worth going to, but the low-gravity bodies with no atmosphere are especially desirable because of how easy it is to launch enormous payloads.

[Anonymous No.11603141]

>>11603096
>muh fuel
the first people to head to mars on a bulk trip in a starship drinking their own piss and shitting into vaccuums are explorers and accept it's going to be rough. When we get to frequent transfers between planetary bodies, having a rotating habitat with huge fuel capacity that doesn't get cucked by having to wait a year and a half between Mars trips is the only way it actually grows.

[Anonymous No.11603143]

>>11603091
Doing what? SSTO is inherently worse than any two-stage vehicle. No matter how good you are at building them, discarding most of the mass early on will always be better

[Anonymous No.11603144]

>>11602323
>And that's why you should NEVER launch a mission without a high definition colour camera.
This. They were going to launch Juno without a camera FFS. No camera on our first probe to orbit Jupiter so close. They said it would probably be totally fried by the 4th or 5th orbit too, and yet it's pretty much unfazed.
Why wouldn't you want a camera on a probe anyway? So much information can be gleaned so quickly from a camera. For example there's all kinds of stuff they've learned by being able to take photos of Jupiter's poles, and up-close shots of cloud structures.

[Anonymous No.11603150]

>>11602369
>Fobos-Grunt
Still salty that this didn't happen and nobody has attempted anything similar.

[Anonymous No.11603153]

>>11603141
the cure is worse than the disease in your case, there's no way to go faster than waiting for the transfer window

[Anonymous No.11603156]

>>11602582
Oh shit I didn't realize this, haha

[Anonymous No.11603162]

>>11603144
Cameras provide visuals and visuals are the dominant sight of humans. Arguing they aren’t needed on a space probe is delusional. No one gives a shit about some numbers.

[Anonymous No.11603163]

Is space flight inherently slow?

[Anonymous No.11603166]

>>11603163
yeah
the very most basic element of spaceflight, Low Earth Orbit, has nothing that happens faster than about half an hour

[Anonymous No.11603167]

>>11603163
Hohmann transfers aren’t slow, but you can speed them up if you want to use more delta/v.

[Anonymous No.11603170]

>>11602866
>Future stagnation is also future.
True, but it's hard to imagine a more stagnant industry than one that uses pretty much the same product they've been using for over 60 years

[Anonymous No.11603171]

>>11603163
>Is space flight inherently slow?
Depends, your relative velocity to objects tends to be rather high, but the time it takes to get somewhere is almost always long.
>>11603167
Wich would make everything even more expensive for rather little gain.

[Anonymous No.11603174]

>>11603166
>>11603167
Sorry, wasn't specific enough. Is the space flight industry inherently slow?

[Anonymous No.11603181]

>>11603174
It’s been slow, but SpaceX seems to work pretty fast.

[Anonymous No.11603182]

>>11603174
no, we went from nothing to the Moon in thirty years
it's happening again now, after fifty years of stagnation

[Anonymous No.11603186]

>>11603049
retard
SSTO on Earth never. It's too anemic for cargo and too dangerous for crew. TSTO all the way.

[Anonymous No.11603190]

>>11603174
Depends:
ULA is pretty slow indeed and so are the russians.
SpaceX mixed everything up recently.

[Anonymous No.11603194]

>>11603174
No, it just spend the last 50 years doing it wrong. Unironically. When Starship is a mature program everyone will pretend it was always obviously the right approach even though they will have spent the entire development REEing

[Anonymous No.11603199]

>>11603071
Building a giant metal balloon in space gives you about 30% more delta V per stage, maximum. Not good enough to do propulsive orbit-to-orbit transfer. Aerodynamic stages on the other hand take a ~10% single stage delta V hit, but their effective delta V goes up by 100% if your target has an atmosphere. Clear winner for anything Earth or Mars or Titan related, as well as Moon related, because pretty much every destination you'd go to from the Moon has an atmosphere to slow down with.

[Anonymous No.11603201]

>>11603194
the basic starship design approach was laid out in the late 60s, anon

[Anonymous No.11603205]

>>11603078
Shelby would love SSTO, the development hell would be permanent and there would be endless high paying engineer jobs required to service the vehicles for months after every flight.

[Anonymous No.11603213]

>>11603201
And Congress should've went for that.

[Anonymous No.11603220]

>>11603150
Japanese will be exploring Phobos soon with MMX, doing the better job than the F-G was supposed to do. They also have more experience with sample retrieval.

JAXA also made Hitomi after getting bored waiting for the long delayed Spektr-RG by Russians+Germans, and it was even better than the original mighty Spektr-RG Soviets had planned in late 80's. Too bad they lost it without any science data received, so the SRG flew first.

Russians were also supposed to launch Millimetron/Spektr-M in early 2000's, and get the first visual images of a black hole in glorious resolution. You can guess how it went, it's still in development. Now we have the black hole image from the Event Horizon telescope, piss poor quality though since its baseline is so short compared to Millimetron. At least Spektr-R (Radioastron) flew and worked, pioneering the interstellar media imaging technique.

[Anonymous No.11603228]

>>11603220
And yes, NPO Lavochkin is making a successor for F-G, called Boomerang.

[Anonymous No.11603231]

>>11603049
>SSTO person transport
Nope, dual stage with re-useable upper booster and vehicle with integrated upper stage is the way to go:
>lower stage doesn't have to go through re-entry and needs little heat-shielding wich saves money on maintainance
>lower stage engines can be optimized for athmosphere
>upper stage/vehicle combination needs less heatshield than SSTO
>upper stage/vehicle combination can use vacuum optimized engines
>upper stage/vehicle combination has some spare deltaV for maneuvers
>upper stage/vehicle combination can use in-orbit refueling for additional deltaV
>upper stage/vehicle combination can be used as a lander or SSTO on bodies of lower gravity

[Anonymous No.11603246]

>>11602928
>red tip
>tracer or incendiary
uh oh

[Anonymous No.11603248]

>>11603194
More likely, Starship will follow the fate of the fully reusable Falcon concept, never making it into production in the original state it was introduced. Fans will pretend it's a success (because it will partially be successful), forgetting the original promise. (like the launches at the fuel cost with Falcons)

>>11603201
Literally everything was laid out in 50's and 60's. Doesn't mean it's easy.

[Anonymous No.11603256]

>>11603248
even if Starship is only a partial success and requires way more maintenance than they thought it would it will still be the best thing on the planet

[Anonymous No.11603266]

>>11603248
>ore likely, Starship will follow the fate of the fully reusable Falcon concept, never making it into production in the original state it was introduced
Source: your ass

[Anonymous No.11603268]

>>11603248
>More likely, Starship will follow the fate of the fully reusable Falcon concept, never making it into production in the original state it was introduced. Fans will pretend it's a success (because it will partially be successful), forgetting the original promise. (like the launches at the fuel cost with Falcons)
SpaceX sets some pretty high goals for itself, but what it achieves in the meantime would still be impressive.

[Anonymous No.11603278]

>>11603248
The Starship's original state it was introduced in is ITS. So that's a meaningless self fulfilling prophecy.

If it produces full reusability comes within a couple orders of magnitude of its cost goals no one will have anything to complain about.

[Anonymous No.11603291]

>>11603266
Source is practically every SpaceX design, from falcons to dragons. Maybe excluding the engines - I think they didn't downgrade them from the concept, neither Merlins nor Raptors. In fact that's how everything in this world works, not just SpaceX, but fans seem to forget about this.

>>11603268
>>11603278
>SpaceX sets some pretty high goals for itself
Precisely. Which also synonymous with "take the concepts with the pile of salt"

[Anonymous No.11603320]

>>11603291
>Precisely. Which also synonymous with "take the concepts with the pile of salt"
You're forgetting the second half of the statement. Concepts in space flight are worth little, instead the actions done should be considered. SpaceX has done alot to push space flight forward in recent years. Proved that reusability can be done post-Shuttle. Dominated the LEO market. Made the largest American rocket currently flying. The fact that they've done alot shouldn't be taken lightly.

[Anonymous No.11603345]

>>11603205
So like Skylon?

[Anonymous No.11603348]

>>11603291
We're beyond the concept phase with Starship at this point. The actual elements will change but for the most part the outline in terms of goals won't change too drastically. Other than cost, the big question left for me is mass fraction. They're still working on getting it down and I have a feeling we may see Starship start at 70~80t and slowly iterate up from there, kinda like how Falcon started wimpy and beefed up over time.

[Anonymous No.11603355]

Seems that /sfg/ threads fill up pretty quickly these days

[Anonymous No.11603373]

>>11603091
>this all in one vehicle thing
What do you think an SSTO is? It's a sea level booster combined with a high mass ratio upper stage, which gets the worst of both worlds blended into a single vehicle hamstrung at every angle.

[Anonymous No.11603379]

>>11603122
Based

[Anonymous No.11603449]

>>11603141
See, it's dummies like you that obfuscate space flight mechanics for everyone.
Fast interplanetary transfers will remain science fiction until we develop direct-fusion propulsion systems that are high thrust and light weight, which won't be for a LONG time if it's even possible.

If we define a fast transfer to Mars as being anything less than or equal to 1 month of travel time, you need to leave Earth's sphere of influence moving at around 30 km/s, or about 60 km/s relative to the Sun, and you'll get to Mars in 31 days, at which point you need to capture at Mars, which will be a minimum delta V of ~36 km/s. The vehicle's total delta V budget, assuming no other burns except for the escape and capture burns, will need to be about 68 km/s (another 2-ish km/s needed to actually leave Earth, before accelerating to cruising speed).

68km/s is absolutely infeasible to get out of a single stage vehicle. To give you an idea, if you use hydrolox engines with 475 Isp (a generous Isp figure), and you imagine a total vehicle mass of ten million tons, to achieve 68 km/s of delta V your dry mass needs to be 4 tons. 4000 kilograms of tanks, engines, and payload, with 9,999,996 tons of propellant. This is not possible to build, even if you were using frozen oxygen and frozen hydrogen as structural material in places or throughout.

Okay, so just for argument's sake, say you want to limit the mass ratio to 80% propellant, how good does your Isp need to be? 0.2 mass ratio, delta V budget of 68 k/s, you need 4350 Isp in order to make that happen. That's on the order of what you get out of a decent ion drive, so possible to cram into a vehicle with modern technology, but there are two problems. First, off, this giant vehicle would need either a giant ion engine or a giant cluster of ion engines, and a giant power supply to match. Second, it's still going to accelerate extremely slowly, so no fast transfers for you.

[Anonymous No.11603452]

>>11603449
We’ll figure it out eventually lol

[Anonymous No.11603453]

>>11603449
This is where fusion rockets come in.

[Anonymous No.11603454]

>>11603449
and not to mention, you have an extremely tight transfer window for that, so you can still only launch once every two years

[Anonymous No.11603467]

>>11600596
I used to box with a Blue Origin employee. He was a fat little greaseball who didn't give a shit about spaceflight and was just there to make money. He pissed me off.

[Anonymous No.11603474]

>>11603248
Even if Starship was never operated in reusable mode, it'd still be a super heavy launch vehicle capable of being built and launched in months for millions instead of years for billions, and of course Starship in expendable mode isn't limited to ~150 tons anymore, it can launch ~250 tons to LEO, and probably 300 tons if they were actually flying them expendable because they wouldn't need to install legs or fins or header tanks or any of those other massive structures.

~300 tons to LEO once per month with a price tag of ~$100 million. That's what a 100% complete failure-to-achieve-scope gets you with Starship. It's not like Shuttle, or any of the SSTO designs to come around, where if it falls short it becomes hot garbage. If Starship falls short to the point that it's totally expendable, it'd still be by far the most economic and capable launch vehicle ever built.

Starship is set up to either be a success in the worst likely case scenario, or a massive success in the most likely conservative case scenario, or a success so large it completely changes the space launch industry forever in the ideal scenario.

[Anonymous No.11603477]

>>11603474
expending Super Heavy greatly increases Starship's lift capacity

[Anonymous No.11603478]

>>11603449
Why would 1 month be the goal? Make it there faster than your alternative and it's a desirable prospect. Especially since we're talking months of transfer time and years of waits in between.

[Anonymous No.11603480]

>>11603320
>Made the largest American rocket currently flying.
Don't forget it's also the largest rocket worldwide, anon, and not even by a little bit either.

[Anonymous No.11603492]

>>11603478
it will always be months of transfer time, and it will always be exactly the same two years of wait time

[Anonymous No.11603495]

>>11603345
Yes, or Venture Star.

>>11603348
>Starship start at 70~80t
Payload or dry mass? As far as I know they're taking the 100 ton to orbit figure as a set in stone thing, if they can't get the dry mass down at the start they will stretch the stages and add engines until the minimum is achieved, then once it's flying as you said they'll trim mass in as many areas as they can to increase payload dry mass fraction. Remember, Starship's actual payload to LEO goal is 150 tons, not 100. If they're giving us the current design payload figure as >100 tons, I believe it, even if the thing is not even close to optimized yet.

[Anonymous No.11603500]

>>11603492
I’ll make it to Mars in eight minutes in my warp ship in 4260

[Anonymous No.11603509]

>>11603477
Yeah, did you read my comment? I even said that in expendable mode the stack goes from getting ~150 tons to LEO to getting ~300 tons to LEO. That's with the Booster being expended, too.

[Anonymous No.11603518]

>>11603495
Yeah it seems I remembered wrong on a cursory glance. I remembered that they were trying to cut down dry mass but I thought 100t of payload was the goal and we were under it, rather than 150t being the goal and ~100t being the projection from current values. That's better than I expected.

[Anonymous No.11603520]

>>11603518
remember, upper stage mass savings trade one to one for payload

[Anonymous No.11603528]

>>11603474

[Anonymous No.11603531]

>>11603478
I chose it as a figure to work around. Transfers to Mars already take 4 to 6 months, so to do a transfer meaningfully faster in order to satisfy that other anon's ridiculous dream spacecraft requirement a fact or of 4 to 6 makes sense, no? Going to Mars in three months instead of 4 doesn't really change anything. Going to Mars in one month could have quality of life changes, at least according to that anon (not in my opinion).

IMO if you have the technology to get to Mars in a month, load that bitch up with payload and get there in 4 months. Same goes for any place in the solar system; don't go any faster than you need to. You don't need to go to Mars in less than four months travel time, from any life support engineering perspective. Being able to get to, say, Saturn in 8 months instead of ~5 years would be very handy, but getting there in one month as opposed to 8 months would just be a waste of capability.

[Anonymous No.11603533]

>>11603528
We're all gonna make it, anon

[Anonymous No.11603539]

>>11603531
Fair enough. Do you think there's any future for NTR Mars or Moon circuit rockets or is that a dead meme?

[Anonymous No.11603609]

>>11603205
No the ideal is that it never flies that way no one is ever embarassed
These grant seekers do not want to actually produce a working product, because then their profit margin disappears

[Anonymous No.11603614]

>>11603355

It is a combination of lockdown boredom, upcoming Starship testing and the first US manned launch since 2011 being only a month away from now.

[Anonymous No.11603624]

anyone want to get /k/ to make some cool space patches for us

[Anonymous No.11603634]

>>11603539
NTR is fine, it isn't mutually exclusive with aerodynamic braking capability and it would offer increased payloads/delta V for missions farther out than Mars.
Any orbit-to-orbit tug spacecraft is basically a meme, it just makes more sense to put payload directly onto whatever object you're going to, with the only exception being missions which require more delta V than your propulsion technology can feasibly supply in a single stage. Going to land on Callisto for example will definitely require more than one stage, even using NTR, however it would still be possible to have the 1st stage both be reusable and aerodynamic-braking capable, you just need to be able to produce propellant in situ on Callisto to ship up with several flights of your lander vehicle, and once ready to go back to Earth the two need to be able to reattach with no gaps in the TPS and a strong hold on each other.

The only place where orbit-to-orbit no-atmospheric-braking capability spacecraft make sense is the asteroid belt, specifically when you're going from asteroid to asteroid only.

[Anonymous No.11603636]

>>11602198

[Anonymous No.11603642]

>>11603609
What I meant by that was even IF they actually got it to fly, there'd still be enormous contracts generated every time the thing flew, in the form of payroll for the standing army of technicians

[Anonymous No.11603644]

>>11603614
Nice IQ anon

[Anonymous No.11603688]

>>11602225
The glowniggers (the NRO specifically) actually donated two telescopes to NASA back in 2012, since apparently they had extras. The WFIRST is being built around one of them.

[Anonymous No.11603710]

>>11603642
Yea but an SSTO with meme technologies can’t possibly work, which is the primary reason it was picked to begin with.

[Anonymous No.11603734]

>>11603710
I'm not disagreeing, lol

[Anonymous No.11603737]

>>11603688
It's a tragedy that they keep trying to cancel that thing

[Anonymous No.11603782]

>>11603737
It's harder to farm grants for it compared to JWST, so it has to go before it does something useful. Because if it does, then people will start to wonder why more isn't being done in space. We've finally managed to cultivate a generation who grew up without something big happening in space, and that's perfect ground for reliable and consistent funding for as little work as possible in space flight.

[Anonymous No.11603789]

>>11603782
That's why I'm so excited about DM-2. NASA celebrating it will accidentally reveal to millions of people that we'd been bumming rides from Ivan since Obama killed the Shuttle.

[Anonymous No.11603791]

>>11603782
I am so fucking mad

[Anonymous No.11603798]

>>11603789
>NASA celebrating it will accidentally reveal to millions of people that we'd been bumming rides from Ivan since Obama killed the Shuttle.
I have my doubts since most people don't give a damn about space flight, but I really hope you're right.

[Anonymous No.11603804]

>>11603789
Nothing wrong with buying rides
But even the prices they have been paying are criminal

[Anonymous No.11603851]

I thought we were getting a Starship test today?

[Anonymous No.11603860]

>>11603851
stuff is venting at the pad, so we are

[Anonymous No.11603862]

>>11603851
yes, but it should be boring

[Anonymous No.11603863]

>>11603862
Don't jinx it.

[Anonymous No.11603871]

JUST FILL UP YOUR STUPID TIN CAN ALREADY ELON REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

ENTERTAIN ME

[Anonymous No.11603886]

So i have been out of it for a week now because of corona chan.
what did i miss?
another pressure failure?

[Anonymous No.11603895]

>>11603886
absolutely nothing
the pressure test is scheduled for tonight

[Anonymous No.11603918]

>>11603895
when?

[Anonymous No.11603920]

>>11603918
dunno
the tank farm is venting

[Anonymous No.11603934]

Link to stream:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i_JaexmP4Q

Ambient test starts around 9, cryo should happen soon after

[Anonymous No.11603948]

>>11603934
isn't this stream better
https://youtu.be/-drIOjUXkPs

[Anonymous No.11603959]

>>11603948
Yeah sure, wonder what the lift is for?

[Anonymous No.11604039]

>>11603886
Elon Musk died and SpaceX shut down

[Anonymous No.11604043]

>>11604039
big if true

[Anonymous No.11604051]

[Anonymous No.11604059]

>>11601403
their job is money laundering, not spaceflight

[Anonymous No.11604061]

>>11604039
surely you jest!

But lets be serious, spaceX has grown beyond musk.
If musk dies or gets thrown in to prison the company is too important to the US now to let it die.
And you still have shotwel who is the real leader at spaceX

The falcon 9 is too good to let die.

[Anonymous No.11604068]

>>11604061
Musk is a divine being. Without him, there is no future of mankind.

[Anonymous No.11604089]

>>11604068
sure, he will probably be the most succesfull entrepreneur of the century at this rate, but still, lets not suck his cock too much.
He has his goth pregnant girlfriend to do that.

[Anonymous No.11604376]

>>11604051

[Anonymous No.11604381]

Someone's doing donuts in a cybertruck near the tanks.

[Anonymous No.11604409]

coooooones

[Anonymous No.11604422]

So. Has someone done the math on how big the crater will be when Starship blows up with actual propellant loaded?

[Anonymous No.11604427]

>>11604422
Roll for anal circumference to calculate your butthurt when it works.

[Anonymous No.11604434]

>>11604422
yeah, the FAA
they were extremely conservative so their number is way bigger than it should be

[Anonymous No.11604486]

>>11604409
i'm coooooooning

[Anonymous No.11604549]

NEW
>>11604548
>>11604548
>>11604548
>>11604548

[Anonymous No.11604780]

>>11603789
>>11603798
It's not even a secret.